Re: Package version numbers

2013-01-16 Thread Stephen Kitt
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:16:26 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote: > Quoting Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org): > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Christian PERRIER wrote: > > > Quoting Jakub Wilk (jw...@debian.org): > > > > I would paint the bikeshed the following color: > > > > 0.8.51+dfsg1-0.1 > > > > > >

Re: Package version numbers

2013-01-16 Thread Christian PERRIER
Quoting Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org): > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Christian PERRIER wrote: > > Quoting Jakub Wilk (jw...@debian.org): > > > I would paint the bikeshed the following color: > > > 0.8.51+dfsg1-0.1 > > > > Isn't that missing the fact that this is a t-p-u upload, which is > > indeed

Re: Package version numbers

2013-01-16 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Christian PERRIER wrote: > Quoting Jakub Wilk (jw...@debian.org): > > I would paint the bikeshed the following color: > > 0.8.51+dfsg1-0.1 > > Isn't that missing the fact that this is a t-p-u upload, which is > indeed the start of a "wheezy" branch? > > So something we were n

Re: Package version numbers

2013-01-15 Thread Christian PERRIER
Quoting Jakub Wilk (jw...@debian.org): > * Stephen Kitt , 2013-01-15, 23:27: > >The version of calibre in Wheezy is 0.8.51+dfsg-1; what should the > >update's version be? I'm purposefully not mentioning our ideas > >(one of them is obvious from the exchanges in the bug report, but > >is in all like

Re: Package version numbers

2013-01-15 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Stephen Kitt , 2013-01-15, 23:27: The version of calibre in Wheezy is 0.8.51+dfsg-1; what should the update's version be? I'm purposefully not mentioning our ideas (one of them is obvious from the exchanges in the bug report, but is in all likelihood incorrect). I would paint the bikeshed t

Package version numbers

2013-01-15 Thread Stephen Kitt
Hi, Neither my AM (Christian Perrier) nor myself are sure about the answer to this one, so he suggested I ask -devel for advice (and I'm throwing -mentors into the mix too). I've prepared an update for calibre, to fix a few issues in the package which is currently in Wheezy (see #686547 for detai

Re: Checking package version numbers

2011-07-12 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Carlo Segre wrote: > I recall that there was a script which permits one to compare package > version names to determine which one is greater.  I just can't remember the > name of the script.  Any clues? dpkg --compare-versions -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.o

Checking package version numbers

2011-07-12 Thread Carlo Segre
Hello All: I recall that there was a script which permits one to compare package version names to determine which one is greater. I just can't remember the name of the script. Any clues? Carlo -- Carlo U. Segre -- Professor of Physics Associate Dean for Graduate Admissions, Graduate Colle

Re: binary package version numbers?

1999-09-13 Thread Adam Di Carlo
Hey, glad to see someone's reading the Developer's Reference closely. -- .Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>

Re: binary package version numbers?

1999-09-12 Thread Peter S Galbraith
tony mancill wrote: > On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Josip Rodin wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 11, 1999 at 02:20:07PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > We don't have a scheme which doesn't force other arches to > > > rebuild beacuse of another arch build's mistake, right? > > > > I think that we use -2.0.

Re: binary package version numbers?

1999-09-11 Thread tony mancill
On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, Sep 11, 1999 at 02:20:07PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > We don't have a scheme which doesn't force other arches to > > rebuild beacuse of another arch build's mistake, right? > > I think that we use -2.0.1 , meaning "a recompile of -2". I'v

Re: binary package version numbers?

1999-09-11 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Sep 11, 1999 at 02:20:07PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > We don't have a scheme which doesn't force other arches to > rebuild beacuse of another arch build's mistake, right? I think that we use -2.0.1 , meaning "a recompile of -2". I've seen that quite often, don't know how official it

binary package version numbers?

1999-09-11 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Am I missing something trivial? Say I have these sources: PACKAGENAME_VERSION.orig.tar.gz I make a second debian version and upload: PACKAGENAME_VERSION-2.diff.gz PACKAGENAME_VERSION-2_i386-slink.deb and other builders and robots build the other arches. Now I realise that I used the wron